Fractal Atomic numbers

 

The illustration/graph compilations on this page highlite the

similarities  between features in the graphs of atomic number

vs. element conductivity.  Repeating patterns and self

similarity between small and large sections  of the original

red graph suggest a fractal element to the arrangement

of  atomic numbers and their associated properties.

Initially consider the the four highest conducting elements

(Be, Al, Cu, Ag and Au) They increase their atomic numbers

at very near the same  rate as the increase seen in the noble

gases  The increases are shown in the example below .

For instance, between Ag and Au the increase in conductivity

is 32. Note the same increase in atomic number, 32, is

seen in the noble gases between Xe and Ra...

Be(4)    Al (13)  Cu(29)  Ag (47)  Au ( 79) - best conductors

         9            16       18         32

Ne(10)  Ar(18)   Kr( 36)  Xe (54)  Ra (86)  - noble gases

         8           18        18        32
 

In the illustrations supplied the original graph of element

conductivity vs atomic number is in red. Overlayed in the

illustrations are graphs of various repeating patterns. These

graph sections are taken from the original red graph and

either placed size as in different parts of  the illustration

or enlarged or reduced and repositioned onto the red graph

to show similarities in profile.
In the first illustration these samples are labelled as sets
1 to 5 in the table below. For instance, sets 3,4 and 5 show
how the main peaks in the red conductivity graph between
Calcium (20) and Copper (29),  are in fact a repeating
pattern found in other parts of the red graph.
Also, set 1 shows how the section from the  main red graph 

between Be (4) and Ag (47) , once enlarged , very closely

matches that of the section in the main red graph between

Be (4)  and  Au (79).
In the second illustration a section from the red graph up to
atomic number of Ag is stretched to 2 different sizes and
re-overlayed onto the red graph to show how a fractal element
can be seen in small and large sections of the red graph

 

 

Set 1

Be  Ca  Cu  Ag  Au

4    20   29   47  79

matches

Be  Al   Ca  Cu  Ag

4    13  20   29   47

Set 2

Cu  Rb  Mo  Ag

29  37   42   48

matches

Ca  Cr  Co  Cu

20  24  27   29

REPEATING PATTERNS...

Set 3

Ca  Cr  Co  Cu

20  24  2 7   29

matches

Be -     Na   Al

4    -     11  13

Set 4

Ca  Cr  Co  Cu

20  24  27  29

matches

Rb  Mo  Rh  Ag

37   42  45  48

Set 5

Ca  Cr  Co  Cu

20  24  27  29

matches

Yb  W  Ir    Au

70  74  77  79

 

 

How the ancients cut their stone slabs

There are stones found in prehistoric sites that are unusually smooth and flat.
With joins that have very tight fits. And very flat outer surfaces. There are two
possible low-tech methods that I thought could explain the flatness and
smoothness of the stones The first is a method I saw as kid on an NFB short
about Inuit igloo making skills. As the blocks of hardened snow have to be snug
fit and at odd angles due to the dome shape, the Inuit rough cut the hardened
snow blocks with little metal hand saws ( the snow is  easy to cut).
They then rough fit them in place and then using the saw they saw up and down
in the joining space between the blocks. Slowly removing any uneven surfaces
on either block. The result is a tight fit at the right angle.
Although rock is a different harder material I thought a similar technique could
be used. Rough cut the blocks. Put in place, and then between the two blocks that
need fitting, insert a large metal saw and start cutting up and down in the crack.
Every so often opening up the space between the two blocks and blowing out the
sandy residue.
Theoretically this would, like the igloo snow blocks, remove any unevenness
between the blocks and presumably give a join that's straight and snug.

The second is how to get a flat outer face on the large slabs. One idea I had
was based on the milling stones that grind flour...Place the rough cut
5 X 10 foot slab that needs to be smoothed onto the ground. With the face up
that needs to be flattened and smoothed. Then place on top, a large circular
milling stone preferably already sufficiently flat. Make it 10 foot diameter
with a handle(s) on its perimeter inserted to allow slaves to rotate and grind
the slab underneath. Although Ive never tried this myself I think it might give
a flat surface if enough circular grinding is applied to the lower slab. It may
be important to *not* allow the circular grinding stone to always rotate on the
same spot as this may not give such a flat finish.

A neodium magnet falling through a copper pipe has its rate of descent, through the pipe, slowed. An effect similar to a magnet being pushed through a copper solenoid. Inserted here is a 3 drawing illustration showing top and 3/4 views of an experimental setup that tries to duplicate the copper pipes` "electro"-magnetic interaction on the falling magnet. In these illustrations Ive tried to replicate the effect of copper being moved past the magnet by having 5 rotating copper rimmed wheels with their rims pointing inwards in a star pattern as best seen in the top view section of the illustration.

The intent of this design is to try to rotate all 5 of the copper rimmed wheels at the same steady speed. Fast enough to levitate the magnet. Presumably varying the speed of rotation will change the height of the magnet . Not included in these illustrations is a means by which to constrain the magnet from flipping or moving away from the central axis , marked x in the illustrations. To do this maybe a vertical transparent plastic tube around the magnet could be added. To keep the magnet positioned above the axis but free to move up and down.

Light from double star system is consistent with emission theory

Supplied illustration refers to the wikipedia /de sitter illustration from the wiki page on emmision theory refutation, showing light coming off of the rotating star at c+v (in the illustration frame)
This illustration shows how the light , although travelling at a constant c+v in the illustration frame,
is also travelling at variable speeds relative to the rotatng star source. This contradicts what is observed in MMx. In MMx light is shown to always travel at the same speed in all directions in the source frame.

The straight line across the illustration is the path of the "photon". The circular line is the path of the rotating stellar source. The numbers refer to where the light will be for each time frame where the time frame is an equal series of lengths of time .
So in frame 1 the light is just leaving the star. In frame 2 the light has travelled distance x from the source at (c+v) and the source has rotated 1/4 turn . In frame 3 the light has travelled the same distance x again and the light source has rotated another turn. Etc etc.
If one then takes the edge of a piece of paper and measures the orange  lines linking 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, and 5-5 and then compares the lengths of each of them . One will find that the lengths are all different.
(1-2 is shorter than 2-3. 3-4 is shorter than 2-3 but longer than 1-2 and 4-5)
This shows that the distance travelled by the light from the source is travelling at a variable  speed, relative to the source. Even though it is observed to be travelling at a constant speed c+v in the reference frame of the illustration .
In other words the illustration in wiki that this refers to is incorrect. Light does not travel at variable
speeds relative to the source. MMx shows us this and in fact there is no known experimental observation that shows that light travels at variable speeds relative to the source.
A correct illustration would be of the light source not moving and the earth/observor moving in a circular motion on the page. This would then show us that light does not pile up as it leaves the source. It would only have a doppler shift added to it at the point of observation.

Fizeau experiment results contradict Special Relativity

In the Fizeau experiment light travels at c/n (in the refractive index of water) when the water doesnt move through the experimental setup . But when the water flows at v through the setup towards the light source, as Fizeau did, the light travels at a slower speed through the pipe. But not by as much as if one subtracted the v of the water from c/n in water. This means that if you were to move with the water during the experiment (or better, you and the tube of water dont move and the light source does) then that means that the light is no longer moving through the water at c in the refractive index of water . And instead it is moving slightly faster or slower through the water then c in water would normally give. Depending on the direction of the flow of the water relative to the source. The irony of this is that, although Einstein apparently said this effect was an important consideration in devising SR. It also is true, that the Fizeau effect is proof that the speed of light in water can be c+-v, if the source moves relative to the observor. Contradicting the prediction of SR that light is always travelling at c for that medium.

The speed of light defined by the usual (Fizeau formula) is..
c/n +-v(1-1/n^2),..where (1-1/n^2) =0.4347
This accurately predicts the observations.

In effect what is happening is that in the same amount of time t, as when the water doesn’t flow, more water has to be travelled through by the lightbeam as it travels from source to detector. This means that the water becomes more dense as a refractive medium. So a classical calculation should reflect this by multiplying the refractive index by the refractive index to find out how the added v of the water affects the light speed.
Aside from Fizeau’s original formula, cited above, there are various other fairly straightforward ways to calculate the observed speed differences in Fizeau that I have formulated. Including:

c/n+-v{n^2-n}
where {n^2-n} = 0.4389

Or: c/n+-v[{(n-1)+(n-1)}^2] 

Or: c/n+-(V x (1-(n-1)/n)

      (c/n+-(V x .67))/n

Alternating Current

The traditional model of electricity as a `stream` of electrons flowing down a wire can be replaced by a more mechanistic model where the atoms in the current carrying wire is described as a string of rotating magnetic fields powered by the rotating permanent magnet in the dynamo source. It is already accepted that individual atoms have associated N-S magnetic fields. Furthermore it is an obvious observation that alternating current is generated by rotating a permanent magnet around the current carrying wire. If these two observations are put together a simple model can be constructed that can explain AC current without resorting to an imaginary stream of electrons. For a simple explanation assume the current carrying wire is one atom in diameter. This would make the wire equivelent to a row of atoms looped in a circuit. In the dynamo mechanism a magnet is rotated around one end of this circuit. To explain the current one only has to extrapolate what happens to the atom nearest the magnet. The dynamo magnet will induce a rotation in the magnetic field of the first atom which in turn will induce a rotation the next atom. This continues along the wire as long as the dynamo source rotates. The result is a rotating `wave` of atoms propagating around the wire circuit. With an oscillation frequency dictated by the amount of turns the dynamo source makes per second. One advantage with this model over the imaginary stream of electrons model is that one can observe electromagnetic waves (radio ) propagating away from the wire. Which will have the same frequency as the frequency in the circuit which has in turn been dictated by the rotation frequency of the dynamo magnet source. For more information on this model, please view the following video called electromagnetic induction at...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPKIBTeQng

Wave/particle duality described by wave only model

The wave/particle nature of light is well documented. However it is a mistake to assume that the particle like behaviour of light cannot be explained by wave only propagation of EMR. Take the example of a photon detector. Instead of explaining the point like appearance of light at the detector as the result of a particle `hitting` the atoms on the detector. One can say instead, that each atom on the detector screen acts like a capacitor. Succesively absorbing, storing up and re-emitting the incoming wave radiation in discreet amounts to the electron cascade. This also gives a point like appearance at the detector screen, despite being from a wave only source. The advantage with this model as it also explains all the wave like interference phenomena observed in EMR